Crazy? FAS HW plug for DAW?

Would you buy a fractal audio hardware solution for plug-in support for DAWs?

  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
fretworn

fretworn

Rock Star
Messages
4,158
Just teasing out a thread from the FAS forum about emulating Neve, SSL mic preamps in the cab lock.

What if there’s a dedicated HW device that excels at analog modeling for nonlinear circuits for emulating mix/master gear like Pultecs, Fairchilds, Neve, SSL, dbx or big tape, sat/dist. whatever…

Nutty notion?
 
It seems like a natural leap to me. Cliff has laid all the groundwork, and integrating
some world-class/timeless outboard gear into the Fractal verse seems like a no-brainer.

I'd prefer to see it as a Firmware update someday.
 
fretworn said:
Just teasing out a thread from the FAS forum about emulating Neve, SSL mic preamps in the cab lock.

What if there’s a dedicated HW device that excels at analog modeling for nonlinear circuits for emulating mix/master gear like Pultecs, Fairchilds, Neve, SSL, dbx or big tape, sat/dist. whatever…

Nutty notion?
Click to expand...
Isn't that what the UAD interfaces are, effectively?
 
Boudoir Guitar said:
Isn't that what the UAD interfaces are, effectively?
Click to expand...


Do they?

I’m relatively new to plug-ins.

For me, maybe the argument goes to whether there is value for real time processing like with a guitar, or just near real time it for the daw crunch
 
fretworn said:
Do they?

I’m relatively new to plug-ins.

For me, maybe the argument goes to whether there is value for real time processing like with a guitar, or just near real time it for the daw crunch
Click to expand...
UAD, some of the antelope audio interfaces, and maybe others, have built in DSP. The plugins are hosted/run on the interface DSP rather than on yoru computer. It allows you to run the plugins with zero latency when tracking (in that scenario, the plugins aren't DAW plugins, but instead are running as plugins on their own software associated with the interface; allows you to run the plugins during mixing/mastering without taking up as much computer CPU resources, etc.
 
EDIT: I didn't read the question properly - my answer below is about a FAS software plugin :facepalm

I voted "no" and the reason for that is that I don't want to mess around with getting the "correct" input levels into my computer via another interface. This relates to @James Freeman post from a few weeks ago concerning signal levels from A/D interfaces into plugin software.

The hardware is attractive to me specifically because it is soley engineered and calibrated for a guitar input signal (in Input 1) and its workload (and associated latency) is optimised for that one job.

Also, the converters and signal path in the FM9 are way higher quality than what I've currently got in my standalone audio interface.

Calibrating Input Level for Plugins

Note: Please don't quote this entire post, I may want to edit and add information or clarify things. You can just reply without hitting the reply button, Thank You! My method of calibrating your Audio Interface and Helix Native to match Helix hardware. The result is more accurate gain from...
thegearforum.com thegearforum.com

It's awesome that James did that hard work and published his work here for us, but it's also illustrative of stuff that I don't want to eff about with!
 
Last edited:
@fretworn Oh!

Embarrassed here. I missed the "HW" part of your title and read only "FAS plugin". Well I'll leave my answer here anyway - I do want dedicated hardware over software plugins but for guitars FX and Amps. I see what you're saying now. Still probably "no", though!
 
fretworn said:
Just teasing out a thread from the FAS forum about emulating Neve, SSL mic preamps in the cab lock.

What if there’s a dedicated HW device that excels at analog modeling for nonlinear circuits for emulating mix/master gear like Pultecs, Fairchilds, Neve, SSL, dbx or big tape, sat/dist. whatever…

Nutty notion?
Click to expand...
To answer the actual question, no I would have no interest in buying a FAS hardware that is focused on anything other than guitar amps/effects. All the jokes about "this one is even more realer" miss the point that a lot of what you've seen in the progress of FAS modeling is just the progress in Cliff listening to/analyzing the sound of guitar amps. As far as I know, he hasn't been hanging out doing anythign similar with various studio gear.
 
Boudoir Guitar said:
To answer the actual question, no I would have no interest in buying a FAS hardware that is focused on anything other than guitar amps/effects. All the jokes about "this one is even more realer" miss the point that a lot of what you've seen in the progress of FAS modeling is just the progress in Cliff listening to/analyzing the sound of guitar amps. As far as I know, he hasn't been hanging out doing anythign similar with various studio gear.
Click to expand...
To add to this -- I also haven't spent enough time around any of that stuff to be able to hear the nuanced difference that I tell myself I can hear between guitar amp modelers.
 
No brainer for me. I’ve spent thousands on plug-ins and the majority of them are replicating an existing analog device. I know if Cliff were going to do something like this, he wouldn’t half-ass it, I trust the company enough to pull off something killer.
 
nope. there is so much already that’s done to death, I don’t really see anything that Fractal would bring to the table. It would also likely exceed prices of most stuff. Their guitar stuff is much more unique compared to what is out there and those circuits lend themselves better to being tweaked and modded.

IMO this sort of idea is driven by fantasy of “if Fractal can make amp models and fx this good, then what can’t they do?”. What exactly are existing solutions lacking? Much like with amp sims, most comparison tests between the real HW and plugins don’t calibrate their I/O properly and then wonder why they aren’t behaving the same.

I’m not saying Fractal couldn’t do it well, I just think it’s about 10-15 years too late to jump into it. If Fractal were going to move into something else, creating other instruments like synths or drums, or perhaps even something more like dedicated multifx would be more innovative than “wait till you hear our 1176/neve/pultec/la2a”.

When I saw the thread, I assumed it meant an amp modelling plugin with a HW controller. I’d be totally down for that and selling my FM-3. Would rather process in the computer and have several instances etc.
 
jellodog said:
EDIT: I didn't read the question properly - my answer below is about a FAS software plugin :facepalm

I voted "no" and the reason for that is that I don't want to mess around with getting the "correct" input levels into my computer via another interface. This relates to @James Freeman post from a few weeks ago concerning signal levels from A/D interfaces into plugin software.

The hardware is attractive to me specifically because it is soley engineered and calibrated for a guitar input signal (in Input 1) and its workload (and associated latency) is optimised for that one job.

Also, the converters and signal path in the FM9 are way higher quality than what I've currently got in my standalone audio interface.

Calibrating Input Level for Plugins

Note: Please don't quote this entire post, I may want to edit and add information or clarify things. You can just reply without hitting the reply button, Thank You! My method of calibrating your Audio Interface and Helix Native to match Helix hardware. The result is more accurate gain from...
thegearforum.com thegearforum.com

It's awesome that James did that hard work and published his work here for us, but it's also illustrative of stuff that I don't want to eff about with!
Click to expand...
tbf this applies to any analog modelled plugin as much as it does to amp sims. Some plugins have calibration knobs or options where you can adjust for different input levels but essentially all analog modelled plugins vary a bit between what level they are expecting to be 1:1 with the HW.

Often there is enough range with thresholds or they have input/output controls, and because there is less gain than a guitar amp the differences are smaller. Still, it’s there and it’s extremely important if you expect analog modelled plugins to behave like their real life counterparts
 
I would.
Make it low noise, high headroom, and low latency.

Audio Interfaces are all over the place and much noisier in comparison to flagship guitar modelers with 123dB+ noise floor, that's important for high gain.
 
The stuff already in the Axe FX III covers a lot of ground. I don't see a need for a dedicated UA style HW box. They'd be better off releasing plugins IMHO.
 
Things that make you go hmmnn …

@FractalAudio

Axe-Fx III Firmware Release Notes​

21.02

Added "59 Bassguy RI Jumped" amp model based on a ’59 Bassman LTD Reissue.

Added “JP IIC+ Shred” Input Boost type to Amp block. This replicates the “Shred” switch on the Mesa/Boogie JP2C.

Added “Bosom Boost” Drive model based on a Friedman Buxom Boost.

Added “OD-One Overdrive” Drive model based on a Boss OD-1.

Improved Compressor block:
  • Improved Studio FF Compressor 1 type. New algorithm yields smoother release and “fatter” compression. This type is suitable for a wide range of uses now including bus and mastering. Type has been renamed Studio FF Compressor.
  • Improved Optical Compressor types. New algorithm features improved ballistics and inherent soft knee for vintage optical compression sounds.
  • Improved Dynamics Processor type. New algorithm also supports various detector types.
  • Improved JFET Compressor type.
  • Added Optical Sustainer type based on optocoupler-based pedal compressors.
  • Added Analog Sustainer type. This is an upwards compressor using the same “analog” gain computer as the Analog Compressor type yielding a natural soft-knee response.
  • Added JFET Sustainer type. This is based on a rare JFET-based pedal compressor where the JFET is in the op-amp’s feedback network.
  • The range of the Release Time has been increased to 2ms to 2s.
  • Added graph for Analog Compressor and Sustainer types.
  • New Auto-Makeup Gain algorithms for most types provides better output level tracking vs. Threshold and Ratio. Note: As a result, the output level of the compressor block may be slightly different compared to previous firmware. Auditioning presets that use the Compressor block is recommended.
  • Selectable Auto-Makeup Gain has been added to Optical, Tube and Analog Compressor types.
  • Studio FF Compressor 2 has been renamed Studio FF Sustainer.
  • Studio FB Compressor 1 has been renamed Studio FB Compressor and Studio FB Compressor 2 has been renamed Studio FB Sustainer.
  • Types have been alphabetized.
Improved Gate block:
  • Improved Downward Expander type. The “Hold Time” parameter has been removed as it is not compatible and no longer needed with the new algorithm. This type has been renamed “Classic Expander” as it based off classic analog downward expanders.
  • Added “Modern Expander” type. This type uses a novel approach to the envelope detector resulting in improved ballistics compared to traditional analog expanders. A “Knee Type” parameter has been added which allows selecting between hard-knee expansion and varying degrees of soft-knee expansion.
Improved Noise Gate in Input block:
  • Improved performance based on new algorithm developed for Gate block.
  • A Mode selection has been added allowing the user to select between “Easy” and “Advanced”. In Easy mode the number of parameters is reduced simplifying the adjustment procedure for those who are unfamiliar with the finer details of gates/expanders for guitar noise reduction applications.
Various other fixes and improvements.
Click to expand...
 
D5EC9DD7-4591-4C9A-A0B4-8E65413FE569.jpeg
 
No. Outside of guitar processing and the required audio interface, I will never ever buy some sound-hardware for my recording endeavours again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top